Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does specify 'live' indicating real-time data, but it does not mention any side effects, error behavior, or output format. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth for a tool without annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical usage hint. Every word adds value, and it is easy to scan, fitting the expected format well.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does (status of Binance and OKX) and when to use it. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format or possible statuses, but it is complete enough for a simple no-parameter status tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema is trivially covered (100% with zero properties). Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds context by naming the exchanges covered, making the tool understandable without any parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it provides 'live operational status' for two specific exchanges, Binance and OKX. This is a specific verb (get status) and resource, and it inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like get_funding_rate or get_spread, which are market-data focused rather than status checks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes an explicit trigger: 'Use when user reports failed orders or unexpected errors.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.